Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 490  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 01:35:20 AM »
This must be a pretty big cult if Trump is even or leading in the polls.

Once New York seizes his assets we're going to have a flood of interviews with real estate developers which go exactly like this:


2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 18, 2024, 11:35:54 PM »
I suspect Trump could get this money if he really wanted to, through multiple lenders, creative financing, etc. Even in the complaints from his lawyers they inadvertently describe some ways he could do it. But that is the wrong play here. If New York actually seizes his assets it will be shocking international news which would have the effect of turning Trump into a martyr.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 18, 2024, 03:28:10 PM »
Maybe this is just a symptom of certain posters being gone or banned, but I'm surprised no one here is shrieking about the "bloodbath" comment that the media has been crying about. The situation seems to be a case of a single word taken out of context to declare that Trump was calling for a violent "bloodbath" if he loses.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/18/cnn-analyst-spreads-disinformation-to-get-feds-to-meddle-in-elections-against-trump/

Quote
On Saturday, Trump warned Americans of an economic “bloodbath” in the auto industry if Biden wins a second term.

“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico,” Trump said during an Ohio rally. “[China thinks] that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.”

“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected,” the former president continued. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath.”

Democrats and the media, however, cut the clip to suggest the former president was simply saying there would “be a bloodbath” if he lost. All over TV screens and social media last weekend, they spread the deliberately false disinformation narrative that Trump had called for a violent “bloodbath” if he loses.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 09, 2024, 03:25:08 PM »
Here is a summary of Trump's next agenda provided by a nice young man who clearly wants to spread the hype.


6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 06, 2024, 02:57:31 AM »
The case was about whether or not the states had the right to take it upon themselves to remove Trump from the ballot, not whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection. It was a perfectly reasonable decision, and I'm not surprised that it was unanimous.

Incidentally, I really don't care that Keith Olbermann said something stupid in response to the ruling, and I don't feel any need to defend him or otherwise take responsibility for what he said.

It's not only Keith Olberman projecting and shifting blame to the Supreme Court.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/05/democrats-project-their-election-interference-onto-the-supreme-court-and-everyone-else/

Quote
Democrats Project Their Election Interference Onto The Supreme Court And Everyone Else

When the Supreme Court smacks down Democrats’ election interference, Democrats claim the courts are a threat to democracy.


The Supreme Court reined in Democrats’ democracy-destroying lawfare with a unanimous decision to restore Trump to Colorado’s ballot on Monday, rejecting Democrats’ arguments that states can weaponize the 14th Amendment to kick their opponents — who have never been tried for nor convicted of “insurrection” — off the ticket.

Democrats have responded by absurdly claiming courts are the ones engaging in “election interference.”

“This is another example among many that are playing out right now, of the Supreme Court playing a huge role in American elections, and it’s not necessarily the case that that’s a good thing for the Supreme Court,” said Russia hoaxer and Democrat mouthpiece Ken Dilanian on MSNBC. This is “going to be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election, and so this is all sort of playing out here in terms of how we assess the Supreme Court and its legacy.”

Former Democrat Rep. Donna Edwards advanced the same narrative on the same network, going after the Supreme Court for being “right in the middle of an election.”

“Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election,” Edwards said. “This campaign is going to come down to whether voters want to choose somebody who either is facing criminal conviction or is convicted of a crime, and whether or not they want to preserve democracy.”

The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus blasted the court’s “complicity” in “boost[ing]” Trump. Meanwhile, a member of The New York Times editorial board explicitly called the whole ordeal “election interference” and said, “[T]he court is putting itself in the middle of politics.” Former CNN commentator Keith Olbermann’s brain worms got the better of him, leading him to write that the “corrupt and illegitimate” Supreme Court “betrayed democracy” and “must be dissolved.”

Here’s how it goes: Voters engaging in the democratic process prefer a candidate Democrats hate. So Democrats do everything in their power, including ignoring due process and the rule of law, to tarnish that candidate at best or remove him from the ballot at worst.

That candidate appeals Democrats’ unjust lawfare in court. The courts recognize the lawfare as such and smack it down. But then, according to Democrats, the courts are the ones engaging in election interference, the candidate is the threat to democracy, and the voters are rubes if they elect somebody who’s been convicted.

In Democrats’ telling, Democrats’ hands are clean.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 04, 2024, 07:46:05 PM »
The left loves to project. When the corrupt left does something that all nine members of the Supreme Court unanimously rule is illegitimate, somehow it is the Supreme Court which is corrupt and illegitimate.


8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 04, 2024, 05:14:17 PM »
Leftists have gone off the plot and are far too radical for the average person. The public does not agree with this and have been increasingly rejecting it. Even the left-leaning Supreme Court judges have voted against the tactics of the left.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-for-trump-in-colorado-ballot-disqualification-dispute


10
Where is this evidence that "Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.

Also, the type of curve that this effect is making may not be compatible with creating noticeable obscuration of something near the surface at 23 miles. Most of the examples of variable light curvature of a closer distance. As I have stated, I could either see the other shore or I could not. If light is bending it would need to be bent in a special and precise way to half-obscure a distant 23 mile landmass.

11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 25, 2024, 01:15:52 AM »
Is there any evidence against controlled demolition that isn't a form of denial and excuse-making?

You have the coincidence explanation that it just looks like a controlled demolition. What else is there?

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 22, 2024, 02:49:31 PM »
Odd how the WTC 7 building was seen to go into free fall - https://ic911.org/journal/articles/the-instantaneous-free-fall-of-world-trade-center-building-7-and-nists-attempt-to-hide-it/

All of these critiques are critiquing NIST, including the segment on the Jimmy Dore show. Referring to the NIST analysis again and again does nothing to contradict the analysis and critiques of NIST that are given.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 21, 2024, 06:21:03 AM »
Well, it looks like you guys have missed out on another smart Trump investment.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=trump+sneakers&_sacat=0&_sop=16&rt=nc&LH_Auction=1



14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 19, 2024, 09:42:29 PM »
Fashion shoes are priced at the optimal price point their target market will buy them at. In younger communities if you spend several hundred dollars on a specific known pair of shoes it's a flex. Your identity is connected to the brand of shoes you wear, and is a staple item analogous to a woman's purse - women spend hundreds of dollars for luxury purses for the brand.

If the shoe is priced too low then it will be seen as trash and you will be laughed at. This what Shaquille O'Neal found when he tried to sell $12 Walmart Shaq shoes in response to the complaints from mothers that everyone deserved to have access to branded shoes. While he did sell a lot of them and fulfilled a need, it pretty much obliterated the prestige value of a Shaq shoe brand. Except for maybe children, no one brags about their $12 Shaq shoes.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 19, 2024, 08:56:56 PM »
The problem with the Democrat's ability to find someone electable in the upcoming presidential election is directly related to the below.

https://www.wtnh.com/news/washington/dems-launch-new-hip-hop-task-force/


16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 19, 2024, 01:57:11 PM »
Most politicians ask for money for nothing in return.

https://gettrumpsneakers.com - The $400 shoes are the special gold ones that were limited in number and are already sold out. They look pretty unique. There are other red or white ones at $200.

If AATW does not like the sneakers then he does not have to buy it. I don't see what the problem is here.

Luxury sneakers associated with celebrities can range in price from $100 to $1000 and Trump appears to be targeting the low end of this.

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 19, 2024, 06:42:02 AM »
There was evidence of explosions associated with Building 7. See this 10 minute video -



Here is an article:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosions

Quote
Explosions | World Trade Center Building 7

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims in its WTC 7 FAQs that “no blast sounds were heard on audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.” 1 However, both audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions during the destruction of WTC 7 contradict NIST’s claim.

Although there are not nearly as many eyewitness accounts of explosions in WTC 7 as in WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are a handful of accounts that strongly suggest explosions occurred immediately before and during WTC 7’s destruction. These include:

Craig Bartmer, former NYPD officer: “All of a sudden...I looked up, and... [t]he thing started peeling in on itself.... I started running...and the whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it.” 2

First-year NYU medical student identified as Darryl: “We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder.... Turned around — we were shocked.... It looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.” 3

Kevin McPadden, unaffiliated, volunteer first responder: “And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound...BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.” 4

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield hears a loud sound from several blocks north of WTC 7 and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.”

These eyewitness accounts are corroborated by MSNBC video footage of reporter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of WTC 7. In the video, she hears a loud sound, turns her attention to WTC 7, and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.” 5 About seven seconds after she hears the loud sound, WTC 7 collapses. As David Chandler observes in the video WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions:

“There were two blasts, followed by seven more regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: ‘The whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.”’....

“When we hear the sharp, regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started to fall.... The blasts we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall.”

In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at the time of WTC 7’s destruction, there were eye-witness accounts from two men — Michael Hess (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke in a stairway in the northeast part of WTC 7 prior to the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM.6

It has been claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced was the result of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of WTC 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates that the explosion and smoke they witnessed occurred before the collapse of WTC 1.7

Endnotes
[1] NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, Question #13.

[2] https://youtu.be/xpoAmEGdsn4

[3] http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma

[4] https://youtu.be/b4z-Wrp1pY8

[5] https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg?t=2m6s

[6] Hess: https://youtu.be/6e3K9jcPdXc; Jennings: https://youtu.be/gwJi0R2jza4

[7] Griffin, David Ray: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009), pp. 84-111.

18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 19, 2024, 05:16:13 AM »
Yes, you are calling it a coincidence based on "random" and "uncertain" events that the observation matches the model of the controlled demolition in the OP that the structural engineering professor presents on the Jimmy Dore Show.

Here is another explanation: It is not a coincidence.

19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 19, 2024, 04:53:39 AM »
This paraphrased explanation of "it's random and uncertain how it will look as it falls, and it's just a coincidence that it's falling like a controlled demolition -- random uncertain effect just made it look that way!" isn't really doing you any favors.

In the video in the OP the structural engineer has a model of how the building look would in a controlled demolition, and it closer matches the observed exterior of the event.

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 19, 2024, 04:13:17 AM »
If the simulation is only explaining the global collapse and the events "after the initiation of the global collapse" differ from observation, then this is not a simulation which accurately explains events. Other NIST answers champion the simulation as "These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred." This is clearly wrong if their simulation of the exterior differs from observation.

The exterior structure of the building becomes severely deformed as it falls in the NIST model.

This is the deformity we are talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQtSprGafU



NIST is correct here in their simulation. There should be severe deformity. It should not come down like a controlled demolition.

It seems like NIST just had a goal of simulating a global collapse caused by fire, and that's as far as they got in explaining the events. They simulated one thing and couldn't go further. They could not simulate what we saw, which is a disproof of their explanation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 490  Next >